Personal freedom/ choice: Social Libralisum vs Social Conservatism

Watch
glassalice
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#1
The legalisation of homosexuality & the move towards ending instatutionalised racism has undoubtedly been a very positive thing.
However, at what point does 'liberalisation' actually begin to take away personal freedoms? Could you argue that a libral society takes away as much of an inderviduals ability to think for himself as a conservative society does, via the mechanism of social control?
If so, does this mean that the only real libralism is a libralism with true freedom of speech?
Last edited by glassalice; 6 months ago
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 months ago
#2
I find it interesting that pure liberalism is only ever defined in terms of freedom of speech. Why stop at speech? Surely a truly liberal society would permit freedom to assault or kill someone else?
0
reply
glassalice
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#3
(Original post by ByEeek)
I find it interesting that pure liberalism is only ever defined in terms of freedom of speech. Why stop at speech? Surely a truly liberal society would permit freedom to assault or kill someone else?
The rule of law acts preserve certain liberties. There again, what liberties should be prioritised? Who has the right to decide this?

In my mind the greatest freedom a man can have is freedom of thought and speach.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 months ago
#4
(Original post by glassalice)
The rule of law acts preserve certain liberties. There again, what liberties should be prioritised? Who has the right to decide this?

In my mind the greatest freedom a man can have is freedom of thought and speach.
Who has the right? Well society does, through a parliament of democratically elected representatives.

And are you saying that the right to free speech overrides the right not to feel threatened?

Like I say - surely in a truly liberal society acts of vilolence are surely only means of self-expression no? What is the difference between saying anything and doing anything? Answer: society has said, through democratically elected governance, that it will not tolerate such things.
0
reply
glassalice
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#5
(Original post by ByEeek)
Who has the right? Well society does, through a parliament of democratically elected representatives.

And are you saying that the right to free speech overrides the right not to feel threatened?

Like I say - surely in a truly liberal society acts of vilolence are surely only means of self-expression no? What is the difference between saying anything and doing anything? Answer: society has said, through democratically elected governance, that it will not tolerate such things.
Equally though how do you define 'feeling threatened'? Do you refer a direct and imminent threat to self or property? Or you mean something that challenges someones beliefs and threatens to undermine their confidence?
Government often mirrors what is socially accepted in society-- democracy. What society deams as being acceptable constantly changes--Hitler was democratically elected after all.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 months ago
#6
(Original post by glassalice)
Equally though how do you define 'feeling threatened'?
In exactly the same way that we define threatening behaviour with regard to physical violence. Am I being threatening if I walk up to you, teeth bared in an intimidating manner and make to hit you but don't actually touch you? Or am I merely expressing myself through physical movement and exercising my right to free movement?

I can't help but feel that you are trying to split hairs here. I think it pretty obvious when someone is using abusive language that is intended to leave the recipient hurt, offended or mentally stressed. I don't think the lines are really as blurred as proponents of free speech make out.

What free speech proponents are generally looking to do is make statements which on the surface seem acceptable but are actually rooted in racism. I don't hear authors, playwrights and creators of art complaining about free speech. I do hear racists and fascists complaining about being silenced.
Last edited by ByEeek; 6 months ago
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 months ago
#7
(Original post by ByEeek)
In exactly the same way that we define threatening behaviour with regard to physical violence. Am I being threatening if I walk up to you, teeth bared in an intimidating manner and make to hit you but don't actually touch you? Or am I merely expressing myself through physical movement and exercising my right to free movement?

I can't help but feel that you are trying to split hairs here. I think it pretty obvious when someone is using abusive language that is intended to leave the recipient hurt, offended or mentally stressed. I don't think the lines are really as blurred as proponents of free speech make out.

What free speech proponents are generally looking to do is make statements which on the surface seem acceptable but are actually rooted in racism. I don't hear authors, playwrights and creators of art complaining about free speech. I do hear racists and fascists complaining about being silenced.
It interesting that on my Facebook account people who don't like the party that in power use the most abusive language about people who voted for them (fascists racist etc). It because they are online they would never behave like that in public because they be arrested
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 months ago
#8
(Original post by looloo2134)
It interesting that on my Facebook account people who don't like the party that in power use the most abusive language about people who voted for them (fascists racist etc). It because they are online they would never behave like that in public because they be arrested
Quite. Doesn't make it right though.
0
reply
glassalice
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 months ago
#9
(Original post by ByEeek)
In exactly the same way that we define threatening behaviour with regard to physical violence. Am I being threatening if I walk up to you, teeth bared in an intimidating manner and make to hit you but don't actually touch you? Or am I merely expressing myself through physical movement and exercising my right to free movement?

I can't help but feel that you are trying to split hairs here. I think it pretty obvious when someone is using abusive language that is intended to leave the recipient hurt, offended or mentally stressed. I don't think the lines are really as blurred as proponents of free speech make out.

What free speech proponents are generally looking to do is make statements which on the surface seem acceptable but are actually rooted in racism. I don't hear authors, playwrights and creators of art complaining about free speech. I do hear racists and fascists complaining about being silenced.
It's not just members of the BNP who end up getting no-platformed.
The term 'offended' is extremely subject.
Those who support free speech often do believe something that goes against the status quo however its not an exclusively just racists.
Last edited by glassalice; 6 months ago
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 months ago
#10
(Original post by glassalice)
It's not just members of the BNP who end up getting no-platformed.
The term 'offended' is an extremely subject.
Oh - of course. We can choose to be offended or not. But I still think it pretty clear cut as to what is acceptable and what is offensive. It is quite possible to debate and criticise people and organisations without being offensive.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 months ago
#11
(Original post by ByEeek)
Quite. Doesn't make it right though.
But how can stop people doing that online. All there doing is bullying other people.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 months ago
#12
(Original post by looloo2134)
But how can stop people doing that online. All there doing is bullying other people.
To a certain extent, you don't, just as people still murder each other and more besides. We have laws and if you are caught and tried, you are punished, but that doesn't mean people won't still get away with it. Personally, I think more pressure should be put on the companies that provide the forums where people can chat. It would not be difficult for them to verify their users and report misuse to the authorities. The problem with the internet is that it is too anonymous.
1
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 months ago
#13
Freedom of speech is a long running debate especially in my school. I feel that all speech except incitement to commit a crime or support of terrorism should be legal - many feel that offensive speech should be criminalised.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 months ago
#14
(Original post by ByEeek)
To a certain extent, you don't, just as people still murder each other and more besides. We have laws and if you are caught and tried, you are punished, but that doesn't mean people won't still get away with it. Personally, I think more pressure should be put on the companies that provide the forums where people can chat. It would not be difficult for them to verify their users and report misuse to the authorities. The problem with the internet is that it is too anonymous.
A lot of people who used abusive language were in their late teens early twenties and at university I think they were a bit shocked when the elections did not go their why.
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 months ago
#15
(Original post by looloo2134)
A lot of people who used abusive language were in their late teens early twenties and at university I think they were a bit shocked when the elections did not go their why.
Are we talking about twitter here?
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 months ago
#16
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Are we talking about twitter here?
social media
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 months ago
#17
(Original post by looloo2134)
social media
True. In my experience twitter tends to be the worst bit of social media though.
0
reply
Greywolf.
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 months ago
#18
Like the spelling, I’m doing this in politics right now actually
0
reply
Greywolf.
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 months ago
#19
(Original post by glassalice)
The legalisation of homosexuality & the move towards ending instatutionalised racism has undoubtedly been a very positive thing.
However, at what point does 'liberalisation' actually begin to take away personal freedoms? Could you argue that a libral society takes away as much of an inderviduals ability to think for himself as a conservative society does, via the mechanism of social control?
If so, does this mean that the only real libralism is a libralism with true freedom of speech?
Well what you are saying goes against liberalism, the core idea of Liberalism is individualism. Thus the argument of extremism comes into play, liberals have become so liberal themselves that they ultimately lean more to the right
0
reply
Greywolf.
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 months ago
#20
Liberalism has ventured very far from its roots
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (727)
33.85%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (920)
42.83%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (407)
18.95%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (94)
4.38%

Watched Threads

View All